4 ms·

I need to ask a really stupid question: Do we have sufficient evidence that there is definitely no genetic aspect to intelligence, or is that just one of the po

I need to ask a really stupid question: Do we have sufficient evidence that there is definitely no genetic aspect to intelligence, or is that just one of the possible explanation and one that we hope is the case (because then we could do something about it). Because I've always repeated the same point whenever confronted with racist talking points. Am I misguided? Because consider that: * It seems that the scientific community is willing to have an open dialogue about the possibility of some ethnic groups having HIGHER intelligence due to genetic reasons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence * Therefore the idea of genetics affecting intelligence isn't outlandish. * It is natural that there would be a double standard for doing similar research with regards to ethnic groups that have faced hundreds of years of history of racial discrimination - with remnant ripples in today's age (as well as new types of systemic racial discrimination). (And yes, I realize of course that the Jewish community has also faced hundreds of years of discrimination also, but in this case the genetic evidence is POSITIVE) * So it seems that before we can have a real wreckoning with the idea of some ethnic or racial groups be genetically predispositioned to lower intelligence, we have to first establish a truly post-racial society so that any findings do not exacerbate the progress. * But until we get there we have to be honest about the reasons why some scientific research may be dangerous and why some conclusions can cause genuine harm to the wellbeing of millions of human beings in their quest for prosperity, or even basic survival. Where I'm leading with this is I think we should be able to have the conversation with people like James Watson without ostracizing them, shunning them, and ruining their lives in the process. We should also not write articles like this with condescending dismissal of the very idea as backwards and racist. I think instead we should be honest that this is a highly complex and highly charged topic, and there are so many variables at play that we are unlikely to get a definitive answer either way. But until we do, and until our civilization can handle realizations that put one group of people at a disadvantage (and specifically individuals without that group who would be harmed by association), we should invest all our efforts into the nurture/societal aspects of the equation to mitigate any possible inequalities on measures like IQ tests.

pfarnsworth 8y ago
[deleted]
- travisoneill1 8y ago
  > If you took an IQ test made in Africa, chances are you would do much worse than someone for whom the questions are more familiar with the types of questions they would ask. This sounds like an easy way to falsify the racial intelligence differences hypothesis (or at least throw out the data that supports it). The fact that the reaction to this is a bunch of handwaving bullshit instead of simply performing this experiment and attempting to falsify is a huge red flag.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
eesmith 8y ago
There absolutely is a genetic aspect to intelligence. We need only look at genetic issues like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-linked_intellectual_disability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-linked_intellectual_disabili... to see that there is a connection. The question, I think, is, since concepts like "race" are primarily social constructs (indeed, genetics helped overturn the older view that "race" was an entirely biologically concept), why should we think there is a genetic correlation between race and intelligence? When you write "It seems that the scientific community", bear in mind that many people in the scientific community are also racist, sexist, and otherwise biased. That is, you can't always infer significance just because there is open dialogue. You write: "the genetic evidence is POSITIVE". Except the link you pointed to includes "Other scientists gave the paper a mixed reception, ranging from outright dismissal to acknowledgement that the hypothesis might be true and merits further research" and "Assuming that today there is a statistical difference in intelligence between Ashkenazi Jews and other ethnic groups, there still remains the question of how much of the difference is caused by genetic factors." and "Criticism of the genetic explanations" and "Cultural explanations". At best, isn't it just an hypothesis, based on a single research paper? I do not think that's a substantial base for your argument. You write "we should be able to have the conversation with people like James Watson". Except, "we" have. How can you have a conversation with someone who isn't listening? What do you do with someone who, for decades, has made unjustified statements like (quoting https://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Nobel-Winner-s-Theories-Raise-Uproar-in-Berkeley-3236584.php https://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Nobel-Winner-s-Theori... ): > there was a biochemical link between exposure to sunlight and sexual urges. "That's why you have Latin lovers," Watson said. "You've never heard of an English lover. Only an English patient." > Watson showed a slide of sad-faced model Kate Moss to support his contention that thin people are unhappy and therefore more ambitious. > "Whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you're not going to hire them," Watson said. > Watson showed slides of women in bikinis and contrasted them to veiled Muslim women, to suggest that controlling exposure to sun may suppress sexual desire and vice versa. > Watson reportedly went on to suggest that people who live in northern climates drink more alcohol to compensate for the unhappiness they suffer because of sunlight deprivation. That was 18 years ago. The evidence doesn't support him. Yet he keeps making the same statements. You write "We should also not write articles like this with condescending dismissal of the very idea as backwards and racist." What if the idea really is backwards and racist? You've said that you don't have the knowledge of the field to determine what the science is, so I don't think you can make conclude that such comments aren't justified. "unlikely to get a definitive answer either way" In many of the things Watson says, we know that Watson's statements are unsupported by evidence. How much more definitive do you want to get?

pfarnsworth 8y ago

[deleted]

travisoneill1 8y ago
> If you took an IQ test made in Africa, chances are you would do much worse than someone for whom the questions are more familiar with the types of questions they would ask. This sounds like an easy way to falsify the racial intelligence differences hypothesis (or at least throw out the data that supports it). The fact that the reaction to this is a bunch of handwaving bullshit instead of simply performing this experiment and attempting to falsify is a huge red flag.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

eesmith 8y ago

There absolutely is a genetic aspect to intelligence. We need only look at genetic issues like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-linked_intellectual_disability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-linked_intellectual_disabili... to see that there is a connection. The question, I think, is, since concepts like "race" are primarily social constructs (indeed, genetics helped overturn the older view that "race" was an entirely biologically concept), why should we think there is a genetic correlation between race and intelligence? When you write "It seems that the scientific community", bear in mind that many people in the scientific community are also racist, sexist, and otherwise biased. That is, you can't always infer significance just because there is open dialogue. You write: "the genetic evidence is POSITIVE". Except the link you pointed to includes "Other scientists gave the paper a mixed reception, ranging from outright dismissal to acknowledgement that the hypothesis might be true and merits further research" and "Assuming that today there is a statistical difference in intelligence between Ashkenazi Jews and other ethnic groups, there still remains the question of how much of the difference is caused by genetic factors." and "Criticism of the genetic explanations" and "Cultural explanations". At best, isn't it just an hypothesis, based on a single research paper? I do not think that's a substantial base for your argument. You write "we should be able to have the conversation with people like James Watson". Except, "we" have. How can you have a conversation with someone who isn't listening? What do you do with someone who, for decades, has made unjustified statements like (quoting https://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Nobel-Winner-s-Theories-Raise-Uproar-in-Berkeley-3236584.php https://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Nobel-Winner-s-Theori... ): > there was a biochemical link between exposure to sunlight and sexual urges. "That's why you have Latin lovers," Watson said. "You've never heard of an English lover. Only an English patient." > Watson showed a slide of sad-faced model Kate Moss to support his contention that thin people are unhappy and therefore more ambitious. > "Whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you're not going to hire them," Watson said. > Watson showed slides of women in bikinis and contrasted them to veiled Muslim women, to suggest that controlling exposure to sun may suppress sexual desire and vice versa. > Watson reportedly went on to suggest that people who live in northern climates drink more alcohol to compensate for the unhappiness they suffer because of sunlight deprivation. That was 18 years ago. The evidence doesn't support him. Yet he keeps making the same statements. You write "We should also not write articles like this with condescending dismissal of the very idea as backwards and racist." What if the idea really is backwards and racist? You've said that you don't have the knowledge of the field to determine what the science is, so I don't think you can make conclude that such comments aren't justified. "unlikely to get a definitive answer either way" In many of the things Watson says, we know that Watson's statements are unsupported by evidence. How much more definitive do you want to get?